9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refusal to refer questions of law to the High Court based on Tribunal's findings. 2. Justification of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi pertains to an application filed by M/s. Polo Singh & Company seeking a reference to the court regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the assessment year 1963-64, where the assessee initially returned an income of Rs. 18,861, but the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 51,287 by the Income-tax Officer. This assessment included a cash credit of Rs. 3,500, which the assessee could not substantiate and eventually surrendered as income. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer, leading to a penalty of Rs. 8,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, later reduced to the minimum penalty under the Act by the Tribunal. The primary contention of the assessee was that the cash credit was genuine and not concealed income, supported by an affidavit from one of the partners. However, both the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal rejected this explanation, deeming the cash credit as concealed income. The Tribunal declined to refer questions of law to the High Court, stating that its decision was based on factual appreciation without any legal issue. The assessee argued that mere rejection of their explanation should not warrant a penalty unless proven by positive evidence that the unproved cash credit constituted actual income. The judgment referenced a decision by the Allahabad High Court and a local Division Bench case, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the genuineness of entries. It was noted that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the circumstances surrounding the cash credit and concluded that the revenue successfully proved it to be concealed income. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating it was a matter of fact without any legal question arising. Consequently, the application was dismissed, with no costs awarded. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims during assessment and penalty proceedings, highlighting the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate the legitimacy of financial entries. It also clarifies the threshold for imposing penalties under tax laws, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to establish concealed income.
|
